"Charles Blahous is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare Programs, and formerly the deputy director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council, serving as executive director of the bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security"

If he adsvised GWB on the economy, I would not trust his opinion for sht...

Besides: economic predictions are like weather forecasts: 50/50. Nobody really knows what will happen until the Law is allowed to work! So far it hasn't been fully implemented. SCOTUS knoked down of the major requirements and GOP controlled states jumped on it and decided to let Feds pick up the cost to ensure citizens of those states WHILE screaming that the Law doesn't work. It is like allowing your mother-in-law to purchase all the food, come and cook in your kitchen, while locking all the intencils and spices and THEN complain that the food doesn't taste good BEFORE it is ready!

"Charles Blahous is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare Programs, and formerly the deputy director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council, serving as executive director of the bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security"

If he adsvised GWB on the economy, I would not trust his opinion for sht...

Blahous is also as one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Programs under the Obmamas Administration.

Besides: economic predictions are like weather forecasts:

????

50/50. Nobody really knows what will happen until the Law is allowed to work! So far it hasn't been fully implemented. SCOTUS knoked down of the major requirements and GOP controlled states jumped on it and decided to let Feds pick up the cost to ensure citizens of those states WHILE screaming that the Law doesn't work.

It is like allowing your mother-in-law to purchase all the food, come and cook in your kitchen, while locking all the intencils and spices and THEN complain that the food doesn't taste good BEFORE it is ready!

Unlike my mother in law (may she rest in peace), the author (Blahous) received his PhD in computational quantum chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and his BA from Princeton University, where he won the McKay Prize in Physical Chemistry.

Next, I expect to be told not to trust what anyone says who is from Berkeley!

Gosh, the stupidity has no limits...

Yeah, those stupid Princeton Chemistry Award winners and PhD's from Berkeley who have served our Government under both Bush and Obama, and who are Trustees of Social Security and Medicare.

As CBO states, “In keeping with the rules in section 257 of the Deficit Control Act of 1985, CBO’s baseline incorporates the assumption that payments willcontinueto be made after the trust fund has been exhausted, although there is no legal authority to make such payments.”

As CBO states, “In keeping with the rules in section 257 of the Deficit Control Act of 1985, CBO’s baseline incorporates the assumption that payments willcontinueto be made after the trust fund has been exhausted, although there is no legal authority to make such payments.”

RB

I cited a source. You seem to have a hard problem with the Actual statements of the CBO. Those statements INCLUDE saying that the deficit will be GREATER if Romney Care is repealed.

Most of what the article says is either true or plausible. The point it ignores - deliberately, since this guy is too smart not to have noticed - is that the more the Government has to contribute so that people can get health insurance and care paid for by insurance, the more clearly the failure of the current system is demonstrated.

The argument goes like this: (a) there is an undisclosed gap in health care funding, and as a result it will cost too much to provide even the limited health insurance for most people proposed by Obamacare, and (b) once the system is in place there will be political pressure to spend more to provide less limited care for more people. This will increase the deficit. (We are left to assume increasing the deficit to fund health care is a bad thing, although the author does not tell us why - again, deliberately, because he is too smart not to know it isn't).

There are certainly inefficiencies in the ACA system, compared to a single-payer system, but they are much less than those in the current system. So, nearly all of the extra money the Government pays is going to provide health care - immunisations, and ante-natal care, and treatment of high blood pressure and diabetes. How is that a bad thing? What possible justification can there be not to do that - on economic grounds, if compassion is not enough reason?

Just to irritate some people around here I will repost this link and table by the CBO. As you can see, the CBO ran the numbers twice, once in February 2013 then again in May 2013. When they re-ran their numbers in May 2013 (3 months later), and tweaked the numbers, the projections went up by 40 billion. I wonder how high it would be up to now?

"Charles Blahous is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare Programs, and formerly the deputy director of President George W. Bush's National Economic Council, serving as executive director of the bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security"

If he adsvised GWB on the economy, I would not trust his opinion for sht...

Blahous is also as one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Programs under the Obmamas Administration

...and both programs are in trouble. Some trustee he is...

Besides: economic predictions are like weather forecasts:

????

50/50. Nobody really knows what will happen until the Law is allowed to work! So far it hasn't been fully implemented. SCOTUS knoked down of the major requirements and GOP controlled states jumped on it and decided to let Feds pick up the cost to ensure citizens of those states WHILE screaming that the Law doesn't work.

It is like allowing your mother-in-law to purchase all the food, come and cook in your kitchen, while locking all the intencils and spices and THEN complain that the food doesn't taste good BEFORE it is ready!

Unlike my mother in law (may she rest in peace), the author (Blahous) received his PhD in computational quantum chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and his BA from Princeton University, where he won the McKay Prize in Physical Chemistry.

i see you are not big on analogies.

anyway, his esteemed degrees in chemistry don't make him an authority on complex economical issues. I am sure he is a very smart fella but I would rather not to defer to his opinion.

Next, I expect to be told not to trust what anyone says who is from Berkeley!

Gosh, the stupidity has no limits...

Yeah, those stupid Princeton Chemistry Award winners and PhD's from Berkeley who have served our Government under both Bush and Obama, and who are Trustees of Social Security and Medicare.

degrees from Princeton and Barkley in chemical analysis? OK, then I am qualified to be a doctor with my engineering degree.

BTW, what are your credentials?

i don't try to envision economic future of the country. I would rather stick to balancing my check book.

Most of what the article says is either true or plausible. The point it ignores - deliberately, since this guy is too smart not to have noticed - is that the more the Government has to contribute so that people can get health insurance and care paid for by insurance, the more clearly the failure of the current system is demonstrated.

The argument goes like this: (a) there is an undisclosed gap in health care funding, and as a result it will cost too much to provide even the limited health insurance for most people proposed by Obamacare, and (b) once the system is in place there will be political pressure to spend more to provide less limited care for more people. This will increase the deficit. (We are left to assume increasing the deficit to fund health care is a bad thing, although the author does not tell us why - again, deliberately, because he is too smart not to know it isn't).

There are certainly inefficiencies in the ACA system, compared to a single-payer system, but they are much less than those in the current system. So, nearly all of the extra money the Government pays is going to provide health care - immunisations, and ante-natal care, and treatment of high blood pressure and diabetes. How is that a bad thing? What possible justification can there be not to do that - on economic grounds, if compassion is not enough reason?

I have one question: it seems to be that running this HUGE military machine with the budget that is running a deficit is perfectly fine with our esteemed friends here but providing access to the health care to millions of people is not because it adds to the deficit? So we had started and fought two wats that were not paid for and cost us billions of money borrowed from China and it wasn't a "violation of the Constitution" but rather a heroic effort but financing medical care is viewed as a financial crime. How it is possible? Maybe GOP should de-fund Pentagon?

Just to irritate some people around here I will repost this link and table by the CBO. As you can see, the CBO ran the numbers twice, once in February 2013 then again in May 2013. When they re-ran their numbers in May 2013 (3 months later), and tweaked the numbers, the projections went up by 40 billion. I wonder how high it would be up to now?

Just to annoy some people here, here is an estimate of the cost of repeal of ACA provided by CBO:

Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

Will Tea Party agree to reimburse American taxpayers a petty sum of $109 Billion? The members can chose between dishes or floors

I have one question: it seems to be that running this HUGE military machine with the budget that is running a deficit is perfectly fine with our esteemed friends here but providing access to the health care to millions of people is not because it adds to the deficit? So we had started and fought two wats that were not paid for and cost us billions of money borrowed from China and it wasn't a "violation of the Constitution" but rather a heroic effort but financing medical care is viewed as a financial crime. How it is possible? Maybe GOP should de-fund Pentagon?

Right wingers get a kick out of seeing people die? Who knows.

How does anyone figure that you can afford to do NOTHING about the health care situation?

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

If the United States didn't spend as much as it does on it's military, how could we continue to protect Canada from foreign invasion? God knows Canada's mighty military couldn't even defend itself from the US Coast Guard.

I have one question: it seems to be that running this HUGE military machine with the budget that is running a deficit is perfectly fine with our esteemed friends here but providing access to the health care to millions of people is not because it adds to the deficit? So we had started and fought two wats that were not paid for and cost us billions of money borrowed from China and it wasn't a "violation of the Constitution" but rather a heroic effort but financing medical care is viewed as a financial crime. How it is possible? Maybe GOP should de-fund Pentagon?

Right wingers get a kick out of seeing people die? Who knows.

How does anyone figure that you can afford to do NOTHING about the health care situation?

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Must be the case. $1.5B for a new submarine is fine but God forbid some people will get healthcare! Crime!!

If the United States didn't spend as much as it does on it's military, how could we continue to protect Canada from foreign invasion? God knows Canada's mighty military couldn't even defend itself from the US Coast Guard.

The only invasion Canada and US face now is polar bear and moose getting lost in the wilderness. Sure we need to spend a few billions to defend against them...